And how was working to help the poor, giving African Americans civil rights (and actually enforcing laws dating back to reconstruction), and not starting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union a source of our problems today?

Creating the American welfare state and singing an act which allowed mass immigration from the third world is a get source of distress today to me. But damn me, I work forty hours a week. While crackheads and degenerate welfare moms shooting out a kid every year from three different fathers have it easier and live in nicer homes than I. The man was white trash who got lucky. He was really good at counting gravestones though.

And I guess you forget Vietnam, roughly 50k dead for Johnson's hawkish ideology but I guess of course it is a permissible war since he has a (D) after his name, right? We don't protest that in America anymore. Wars are only morally objectionable if the person illegally starting them has an (R) after the name? I do apologize. But again, understand I'm one of them evil white males who work 40 hours a week for life to put a roof over my head.

Creating the American welfare state and singing an act which allowed mass immigration from the third world is a get source of distress today to me.

Allowing people to immigrate to the US is NOT a bad thing. People need to get over the fact that people from the UK and Germany are HAPPY being in the UK and Germany. Complaining about Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, Africans immigrating to the US sounds like nothing more like petty racism where a white protestant doesn't like the fact that growing votor demographic is no longer identical to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patton

But damn me, I work forty hours a week. While crackheads and degenerate welfare moms shooting out a kid every year from three different fathers have it easier and live in nicer homes than I.

I doubt very much that someone on wellfare lives that high a standard of living. And I'd think you'd find that many of the people there are those that are struggling and are not leaching off of the government. Things such assistence for the unemployed are part of the welfare system, and to my knowledge to qualify, you have to have had a permenant job, been fired, and are actively seeking new employment.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you, and they should not be punished for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patton

And I guess you forget Vietnam, roughly 50k dead for Johnson's hawkish ideology but I guess of course it is a permissible war since he has a (D) after his name, right? We don't protest that in America anymore. Wars are only morally objectionable if the person illegally starting them has an (R) after the name? I do apologize. But again, understand I'm one of them evil white males who work 40 hours a week for life to put a roof over my head.

Vietnam was a mistake, but it wasn't entirely a war LBJ wanted. His goal and dream was the Great Society. I believe there is a quote out there where he essentially calls Vietnam a distraction from what he wanted (along with using vulgar slang for a female dog to discribe the Vietnam War).

Though to a great extent, one could argue that LBJ was pushed IN to Vietnam. Had LBJ ignored it and let the North Vietnamese win, the Goldwater Republicans would have charged LBJ to be a Communist for letting them win in Vietnam, repeating the charges Republicans made against Truman when he ignored Chang Kai-Shek's defeat in the Chinese Civil War. It was a case where he would have been damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. LBJ did, and was damned as a result.

My referance was to the election between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater made tons of off the wall comments, including defending segregation and being off the wall with regard to foriegn policy. In my opinion had Goldwater been elected, if he didn't moderate his positions, we would have had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, which would have been far worse than the Vietnam war.

People aren't voting for Bush Sr., they are voting for Jr. but seem to be confused about the initials and the fact that Bush Jr. is no longer on the poll.

Here are two quotes from posters (In Advance, I say "you're welcome"):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorge123

I picked George H.W Bush for starting the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apachewarlord

I was not thinking I was voting for Bush Jr. I knew I was voting for Bush senior. And I did it believing that he was the worst, or one of the worst. Nothing ever said here has changed my mind. (I actually think Jr. was worse)
I don't like his handling on economics, I am always angered by the "Read my lips promise" and I think he could have prevented the gulf war. He also spawned the likes of Bush Jr. and Jeb Bush

I would also like to point out that a lot of the Republicans in here have been accusing the Democrats of voting certain ways and saying certain things only because they are Democrats. However, It can also be said that the Republicans are doing the same thing. I myself have not been without faults in this category. I am beginning to see that H.W. Bush was nowhere near the worst president in history. (He still sucked though). I would like to remind everyone, not just Democrats and not just Republicans, but everyone to look at this question through a historians eye, and not the eye of someone who belongs to a specific party.

Obama is the 44th President of the USA. but Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President. since he served non-consecutive terms. Therefore, 43 men have served as President, not 44.

I'd advise that you don't post anyone after 1990, as that is after Historum's cut-off point for history, and you'll risk having the thread closed as contemporary politics.

I agree, traditionally it takes roughly at least a generation after an event for historians to give a more unbiased opinion of an individual or event. In my opinion, a critique of Presidents Clinton and Bush is about 10-15 years premature.

Another vote that I find interesting is the vote for Madison. I am in no way criticizing whoever voted for him, however, I would like to know why you voted for him

Personally, I chose James Buchanan however I can see the logic in choosing Madison if not for the top spot in this poll but an honorable mention. His choices for Generals during the War of 1812 were in the very least questionable, (ex: Hull, Dearborn) and his coercion by the Congressional "War Hawks" to declare war on Britain could be compared to Bush Jr. in his 2003 decision to invade Iraq. Granted, Madison did regain some of my respect for his bold actions in leading American troops as the British advanced on Washington, however I believe he would have best served the nation as the head of the Legislative branch rather than as the Chief Executive.